( 2026:HHC:28475 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No. 25/2025 Decided on: 10.07.2026 Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh & Anr. …Petitioners Versus Shivendra Singh & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Owasis Khan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Deven Khana with Mr. Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate for respondent No.1, 3 to 7 and 9. Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondents No.9 and 15. Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate for respondent No.11. Mr. Ganesh Barowalia & Mr. Rohit Thakur, Advocates for respondent No.13. Mr. Amit Singh Chandel & Mr. Abhinav Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.14. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2026:HHC:28475 ) Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.16. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice, (Oral) The review petition has been filed by Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh, who was respondent No. 7 in the writ petition, and the second review petitioner is Sh. Francis Kuljeet Rana, who was not arrayed as a respondent in the main writ petition, though notice had been issued on 18.07.2023 for his impleadment. The order sought to be reviewed was passed in open Court on 24.04.2025, whereby the main writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioners and the application bearing CMP No. 24326 of 2024 was also dismissed, with liberty reserved to the applicant to avail such appropriate remedy as may be available to him in accordance with law, since the main writ petition stood withdrawn. 2. Upon perusal of the application bearing CMP No. 24326 of 2024, it is evident that the prayer therein was for modification of the interim order dated 12.11.2024 by directing the Municipal Council, Shimla, to take control of the property so as to continue the more than 100-year-old arrangement for the management and control of the cemetery by the applicants and the Christian community of Shimla. 3 ( 2026:HHC:28475 ) 3. Learned Senior Advocate for the review petitioners submitted that on account of their dispossession during the pendency of the writ petition, their rights have been adversely affected. He further submitted that since the writ petition came to be withdrawn, the review petitioners had, in the interregnum, already been dispossessed, and, therefore, need to be restituted. The order dated 24.04.2025 reads as under: - “Learned counsel for the petitioners states that since majority of reliefs claimed have been granted to them, therefore, they be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach Appropriate Authority, in case, there is any other or further grievance. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. Parties are at liberty to seek implementation of Heritage Committee Report by the Competent Authority. CMP No.24326/2024 The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant states that the instant application should be decided, however, since the main petition itself has been withdrawn, therefore, the application does not survive and the same is accordingly dismissed. Liberty is, however, reserved to the applicant to avail such remedy as may be available to him in accordance with law.” 4 ( 2026:HHC:28475 ) 4. The case has a chequered history. It may be noticed that the demolition order was apparently passed on account of the unauthorised construction having been raised in the Kanlog Cemetery, which is stated to be a heritage site. 5. The writ petition had been filed by the writ petitioners praying, inter alia, for the reliefs that the car parking inside the cemetery be removed, unauthorized roads, structures, cricket pitches, etc. be banned, and the illegal structures be removed with immediate effect. It was further averred that the site is a heritage site and, therefore, the entry of the general public thereto could not be barred. A further direction was sought for restoration of the said heritage cemetery to its original condition. 6. Apparently, a demolition order dated 22.11.2019 had been passed by the Corporation after visiting the spot and noticing steel frame structures/sheds with CGI sheet roofing and brick walls of different dimensions, which order was directed against Sh. Francis Kuljeet Rana. The said matter was the subject matter of an appeal before the learned District Judge, Shimla, decided on 11.12.2020 (Annexure P-9). A similar order dated 05.11.2022 of demolition was also the subject matter of another appeal preferred by the same applicant herein, which was decided on 15.05.2023 (Annexure P-10). There is also a report on record dated 28.06.2023 (Annexure R-I) done by the Heritage Committee constituted by the 5 ( 2026:HHC:28475 ) Government of Himachal Pradesh with regard to the inspection carried out in pursuance of the order dated 17.05.2023. The said report states that there were illegal structures raised and, therefore, directions were issued for immediate removal of the illegal structures and for restoration of the site to its original condition by removing the concrete pavements, lamp posts, service connections, etc. It was further directed that the illegal use of the unauthorized parking area and the holding of religious or other public meetings be banned with immediate effect. 7. Reference can also be made to the order passed by the learned District Judge dated 11.12.2020, wherein it was noticed that the structure had swelled from 139.51 square metres to more than 300 square metres and that it was one of the five historic cemeteries in Shimla, containing a slice of British history and serving as the final resting place of both Christians and Parsis. A finding was recorded that an enormous amount of construction had been carried out in an illegal and unmindful manner by Sh. Mahendra Pratap Singh and his associates over the last ten years. It was also noticed that the present applicant, Sh. Mahendra Pratap Singh, was claiming to be a caretaker/priest appointed by the Committee members. It was under these circumstances that on 10.09.2024, an order was passed directing removal of all debris, including electric wiring and CGI sheets of the demolished 6 ( 2026:HHC:28475 ) structure. The State of Himachal Pradesh was also directed to ensure that the cemetery in question was kept free from encroachment by taking all necessary steps to protect and preserve the property, which is stated to be owned by the State Government. Thereafter, another order dated 12.11.2024 was passed directing that the earlier order be complied with in letter and spirit by removing cement and debris and reporting compliance on the next date. The Municipal Council, Shimla, was also directed to take full control of the property by deputing a Chowkidar. 8. The present applicants were apparently issued a show cause notice dated 26.11.2024 (Annexure R-7/21), whereby applicant Sh. Mahendra Pratap Singh was directed to remove the debris and CGI sheets and to comply with the orders dated 10.09.2024 and 12.11.2024. A reply was filed on 28.11.2024 (Annexure R-7/22), wherein it was stated that time be granted to shift the articles pertaining to prayers to some other place and that a necessary affidavit had already been filed before this Court. It was further asserted by the applicant that he was not occupying the premises unauthorisedly. 9. In the reply filed to the petition by applicants/respondents No. 6 and 7, it has been pleaded that respondent No. 7 had been entrusted with the responsibility of looking after the once deserted and neglected cemetery and that he 7 ( 2026:HHC:28475 ) had prevented intruders, trespassers and other anti-social elements from entering the cemetery. It was further averred that he had taken the initiative of gathering local Christians for holding mass prayers on Fridays and Sundays. Allegations were also levelled against the petitioners, one of whom is primarily an Advocate and were residents of the neighbourhood. It was further stated that Sh. Francis Kuljeet Rana, the then Secretary of the Shimla Christian Cemetery Committee, had been permitted by respondent No. 7 to look after and maintain the Kanlog Cemetery, and it was on this basis that the aforesaid defence was sought to be raised. 10. Apparently, as noticed above, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, when the relief of demolition had already been granted. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the present review application seeking recall of the order dated 24.04.2025 is not liable to be entertained, keeping in view the fact that the applicants have not been able to demonstrate, either now or earlier, any right, title or interest in the property in question, which is stated to be a heritage property and belongs to the State Government. In such circumstances, the order having been passed in their presence and in the absence of any such title, they cannot now seek review of the said order. Even otherwise, the order itself granted liberty to the applicants to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to them in accordance with law. 8 ( 2026:HHC:28475 ) 11. Various vested issues would arise as to whether a mere caretaker would have any right to continue in possession of such valuable property situated in the middle of the town, particularly keeping in view the fact that graves on the said property had earlier been disturbed and constructions had been raised in such a manner that the property appears to have been used for personal gain. 12. Accordingly, keeping in view the limited scope of review jurisdiction, we are not inclined to entertain the present review application, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua ) Judge 10th July, 2026(rohit)